Posts tagged sexism
Posts tagged sexism
So many praises for “The Daily Beast” — the most recent “news” outlet to understand my feeble lady brain can only handle fluffy Lady Reads, lest I get the vapors and need my fainting couch!
Oh, we might go bomb some country somewhere and stuff? GAH! TOO MUCH! FETCH ME SOME LADY READS!
"The Texas lawmaker looks a little different than she did 30 years ago, and one anonymous blog wants to know why"
So this is a thing.
The anonymous blogger’s claims include she can’t be a feminist icon because she wears makeup and dresses, plus “[c]urrent photos of Senator Davis depict someone who is not just more physically attractive, but who arguably seems younger than the woman in her yearbook photo, even though that photo was taken 22 years ago.”
I just… REALLY?!
Lindy West, “Sexism Fatigue: When Seth MacFarlane Is a Complete Ass and You Don’t Even Notice” on Jezebel.
If you’ve written anything in support of feminism, women, or just happen to be a person who identifies female on the internet, here’s the 14 types of sexist comments (or anons) you’re guaranteed to get.
occupy wall street
If your blog posts anything like the above, please reblog this so I can follow you! I really want to build up a big network of progressive bloggers to help inspire my own vision and get more involved in activism in general.
Please and thank you, comrades!
Oh hi mostly my entire blog.
Well, except cat pictures. I post those often.
I knew it was inevitable. There would be people out there claiming that if Anne Hathaway hadn’t, I don’t know, had a ladyflower or something, some poor paparazzo wouldn’t have had to take a picture of it to sell at a profit. Now, these folks will claim it’s not OK to take pictures of people’s genitals without their consent, but….
…Anne Hathaway totally brought it on herself by not wearing underwear, getting out of the car properly, taking personal responsibility, wearing a chastity belt, being a woman, being famous, being a famous woman, etc. so therefore, I’m hitting the Google for some upskirt. Or at the very least, defending the creeper photogs making a killing off of Anne Hathaway’s blurry crotch pics.
Seriously. There’s laws against upskirt photos in several states (including New York), and the federal Video Voyeurism Act of 2004, but what it typically comes down to legally is whether or not the person had an expectation of privacy, if special equipment (i.e. a bathroom camera) was used to get the shot, and whether or not the image is of bare body parts most people consider the bathing suit area. Unsuprisingly, there’s no “fair game” clause for famous folks who get out of cars awkwardly in any of these laws.
The “she totally asked for it” attitude goes beyond legal ramifications — there’s a dark undercurrent of institutionalized misogyny and rape culture here. If Paris Hilton were raped by an acquaintance after a night of partying in NYC with drugs and booze, there would probably be more internet schadenfreude than if it happened to a stereotypical sorority girl from NYU. Both are terrible events, both would elicit the “she was asking for it” trope, but Paris Hilton would be raked through the coals because of who she is — I mean, SHE MADE A SEX TAPE AND IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY, DUH. </sarcasm>
Here’s another example. A substitute teacher in Georgia was fired this year after posting upskirt photos of his allegedly 18-year-old students to the r/creepshots Reddit. In a few threads, he admits the students were younger than 18. Redditors came to his defense, arguing that the girls were asking for it by sitting at their desks with their legs slightly apart in skirts, or by simply dressing sexy. You get the idea. That’s an outrage, right?
This week Anne Hathaway, while in NYC for a movie premiere, got out of a car and accidentally exposed her lack of underwear. As she explained to Matt Lauer (who
hilariously boorishly quipped, “We’ve seen a lot of you lately”) the incident “kind of made me sad that we live in an age when someone takes a pic of you in a vulnerable moment and sells it rather than deletes it.” She added, “I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies unwilling participants…”
"Unwilling" being the key word there. Both Hathaway and the teacher’s students were unwilling participants. As Erin Gloria Ryan wrote regarding the educator:
"Because when women turn 18, they magically become public property to be photographed whenever and jerked off to by whomever. Hey, it’s not dudes’ faults your existence drives them into a penile frenzy… there’s also, you know, the fact that we over-18 human females also don’t much appreciate being treated like decorative sex toys. Women’s bodies are not public domain, and demanding control over our images isn’t ‘ruining anyone’s fun.’ It’s asking to be treated like a goddamn person."
Exactly. This idea that women’s bodies are in the public domain runs rampant once a famous woman is involved. Don’t believe me? Just Google any famous female celebrity and “upskirt” — you’re likely to get at least a few hits. I would argue that not respecting the right of female celebrities to avoid being commodified as unwilling sexual objects for profit desensitizes us to sexual violations and objectification of all female persons, whether for profit in a capitalist manner (paparazzi, gossip sites, and tabloid publishing) or for the sexual gratification of Reddit denizens seeking to jerk off to a non-consenting target.
(Note: Before any of you folks get the bright idea to say “but wimmenz is nekkid in movies all teh time!” remember, the operative word is “unwilling.” Actors and actresses are compensated for nude scenes, are often not actually nude, and have arguably more control over what is ultimately distributed and exposed. They’re willing participants. It’s the difference between Anne Hathaway in NYC this week and Anne Hathaway in the 2010 flick Love and Other Drugs [Link NSFW]. Or, alternately, just because I’ve consented to sex with guys before doesn’t mean I’m down to fuck every guy who wants it.)
So where does that leave us? Strangely prudish, with an intense desire to almost punish female celebrities with the loss of personal possession of their image and, symbolically, their bodies. It’s not that far away from justifying exploitation to justifying assault. In both cases, “she was asking for it” and “she put herself in that situation” takes the blame off the violator and places it on the person who dared to wear too little clothing, too much makeup, wear sweats, drink, walk home alone, get out of a car, go to school, have a vagina, have breasts, be a female person, etc.
Here’s Exhibit A. Meet Emily Moray. I posted the comment from political cartoonist Matt Bors about ascribing blame where it belongs earlier. Well, Emily thinks it’s mostly Anne Hathaway’s fault because, as she says, “[T]here is a difference between having your labia photographed when you have the expectation of privacy and when you show up to A PUBLICITY EVENT. I’m not saying that the photographer and the publisher did the right thing, but she is also responsible for her actions.” Here’s what happened after that [Click to view larger]:
Got that? Every actress should know she will be photographed upskirt. And Anne Hathaway absolutely cannot haz that sad she told Matt Lauer she had. Because she should know better. And it continues…
Exactly how far does “she was asking for it” go? Apparently, far enough that a woman should shut her goddamn mouth if she’s silly enough to think she deserves to go out in public looking like that — especially if she’s any kind of celebrity. </sarcasm> Remember, every time you giggle and share that Huffington Post slideshow with the latest unintentional exposure by a famous woman captured in upskirt or downblouse shots, you’re reinforcing the message to women across the gender spectrum that their bodies are not their own, and they too can be sexual objects commodified for sexual pleasure or profit.